Politics

“It’s the government’s place to help people.” That is the common assumption behind most of modern American political thought.

What does such a view mean in practice?

The forcing of one person to work on behalf of another. And this, not for the sake of defending the country against an invader or a criminal, but for the sake of giving to a man those positive comforts he has not attained for himself. “If a person is unable to take care of himself, it is proper to force others to take care of him,” this view holds.

Both are monstrously immoral. Both are pathological liars. Both embrace ideas inimical to the American Constitution and to Christianity. Both demonstrate gross incompetence matched only by their naked lust for power and their willingness to slander every enemy in their path.

Conservatives face a dilemma: vote for Trump, or wait for another option (a write-in, a convention shake-up, or even a Libertarian, if that party can put forward a pro-life candidate).

These desperate options all have this in common: None is likely to change the outcome. As far as can be predicted, it seems the outcome must either be Hillary or Donald. In the face of this horrible choice, shouldn’t we at least be willing to hold our noses and vote for the candidate that seems the least threatening to Western Civilization?

In this final article of the series I want to address a question I brought up near the beginning: Why am I, a worship leader, so concerned about this issue?

If I’ve been right in my preceding arguments, the answer is clear. I care about my society. I care about the world I live in and the world I leave to my son. I work as a leader in a church because I want people to see God and his righteous ways. Sometimes that means taking an unpopular stand.